Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 1

public domain source copy-and-paste
[moved to Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources ]

lists

 * lists -> list

-

Is it fair to say that the collection of pages on the Simpsons, Star Wars, Atlas Shrugged and the like violate convention #7 (on encomia/fan pages). I appreciate that some people consider these books/shows very important, or like them very, very much, but I hardly think that an encyclopedia is the place for such pages. While I think the question of what knowledge is relevant and important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia is a difficult one, I think these pages clearly don't deserve inclusion; if the authors wish to create detailed pages on the Star Wars universe, they are perfectly capable of creating such pages in hundreds of other places around the Web.

Has this been discusssed elsewhere? -Graft 08:21 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

While I do believe that significant changes to this page should be discussed first... &mdash; Toby 11:09 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

On the mailing list, I said I whip up some boiler plate notices asking people to discuss major changes to the policy pages, and then unlock them all, and there were no objections. I'll do that within the next day or so. --Stephen Gilbert 12:00 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

All "List of..." pages annoy me. Like they do many here. However, Wikipedia has the potential of being larger in scope than any previous "encylopedic" (is that a word?) human endeavor. A "list of atheists" can fit here because nobody has to buy this journal, this book, this volume, this collection. Why not let it ride? Let "our" (man, how easily we perceive this as ours) readers read what they want. There is no limitation (someone must be buying the server space for this stuff [damn, that's spooky--will this all expire?]). Why complain? -Arthur 02:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I think "List of" pages are useful, not only as a way to create a link to new articles but to give people some thinking points to start off their own articles. -- Zoe


 * I agree with that. As an article to themselves, I don't like them. Wikipedia is not an almanac. On the other hand, I got some decent articles out of the list of people on American postage stamps, while Zoe did a great job of turning the Academy Award winners into articles. Danny 02:17 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time parsing item 2. In the first sentence, I don't think that the part starting with "that" adds anything useful, and it sure is hard to understand. Also, what does "as in the case of biographies" have to do with anything? --GG

Also, item 4 needs some bold. --GG


 * The page is now unprotected. Do whatever editing you think is needed making sure not to change the meaning. But don't worry too much about that - somebody will fix it if you do. --mav

Anyone notice how 67.122.115.150 has been busy plugging albums and videos in the various "Years in Music" and "Years in Movies" entries on here? I know that there's a statement on how Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for advertising, but methinks we may need to have a more direct and prominent statement, especially concerning things like this. While 67.122.115.150's actions don't exactly violate Wikipedia, they do toe the line and make me wonder if we won't be seeing an increase of subtle advertising tactics like this guy is embarking on. -- Modemac


 * Have you tried User talk:67.122.115.150? --Eloquence 16:45 Feb 1, 2003 (UTC)


 * He's gone now, and when he comes back he'll have a different IP address. -- Modemac

Wikipedia is not future history
Wikipedia is not a repository of predictions of what will happen in years to come. (the exception being if such predictions are well-known, such as Nostradamus, Asimov, Jules Verne etc; and even then these should not be intermingled with history articles since they are parts of works of fiction). Should we add a new entry or file under "9: Personal essays"? -- Tarquin 22:16 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think 9 is sufficient. We do not want to deter people from putting valid, properly attributed predictions into articles. --Eloquence 22:22 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. And things like solar and lunar eclipses and "Turkey's entry into the EU due to be reviewed" -- things we're sure or fairly sure will happen. My point was things like "2005: Oil Wars", "2010: aliens land" etc. -- Tarquin 23:46 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC), Stephen Gilbert 23:32 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Future history is mostly opinion, so the "Personal essays ... personal opinions" already excludes them. Besides, there's an entire other wiki where they would be more appropriate: http://futures.wiki.taoriver.net/ DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Opinions in Wikipedia pages
Moved from the Village pump:


 * Feel free to express opinions on talk pages and on your user page - there is no rule against that. But articles must be NPOV. ---mav


 * Thanks, the npov article was helpful...By talk pages I assume you mean the pages under "DiscussThisPage"?


 * Is there a place to navigate only the discussion pages?


 * No. Should there be?


 * So are user pages are totally unrestricted then as to content?


 * No. You should still consider wikipetiquette, make no personal attacks, and avoid breaching copyright or the law. But they are less restrictive.

advertisements on Wikipedia

 * Also, I was just wondering, can people post advertisements in the talk pages? (e.g., under the computer OS page, could Microsoft theoretically be allowed to point out under "DiscussThisPage" that they can purchase the newest Windows software at their website)


 * Personally, I would remove such adverts on sight.

Since Wikipedia is open to contributions from all comers, what is to prevent its being taken over by commercial interests wishing to promote their products?


 * Primarily, it's against the rules of contribution - Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and most advertising is not neutral point of view. The various checks and balances against vandalism have always worked to date (see Our responses to our critics). If companies want to contribute to writing factual, balanced, informative articles, so much the better. Martin

Do we have a policy on users who merely spend their time adding weblinks to one company, presumably in an attempt at promotion? For example, user:203.35.82.3 has added lots of e-text external links to the same company - how to handle this? Martin


 * In this case, I think the links should be replaced with links to a non-commercial source (e.g. Gutenberg) ASAP, but they're OK for the time being. What would be a reason for banning is if he replaced links to non-commercial sources with commercial ones. --Eloquence 19:00 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

some sort of achievement

 * "Wikipedia is not a genealogical or biographical dictionary"

I'd just like to check. Is being killed by having an aeroplane crash into your office window an "achievement" within the context of wikipedia? Martin


 * It's a matter of opinion. Every wikipedia user will have their own opinion about what's worthy of an article. Provided they are based on solid facts that can be verified elsewhere, I see no problem with such articles (see discussion about Sir Mildred Pierce). ( 22:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

There is discussion about The Cunctator's recent change to this entry on WikiEN-L. I'll try to divert it here. -- Toby 19:46 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)


 * I actually quite like the idea of requiring that there be at least a few published articles, documentaries, etc, ec, about someone before they are worthy of inclusion. Luke Rhinehart is an obscure author who's had several book reviews and a couple of documentaries. Brandon Teena is a dead person who inspired a film.

Meanwhile, Ben Hajioff's exposure is limited to liner notes on a compilation CD. That's not noteworthy. Mind you, I'd put the bar higher than requiring a single article - I'd like to see subjects of articles have a range of sources available, so that we can use all of them to guard against bias and achieve a rounded picture. Martin

It seems to me that even if something's on the summary edit, it should still be on the complete list. This is especially true when the complete list has more detailed explanations. -- Toby 23:53 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Huh ? What "summary edit" are you talking about ? DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be the United Nations
National and International(Empty, as of 19 April 2003) are Social and Political boundaries. Whereas, Wikipedia is a Community or Virtual Community. Morality unites Communities whilst Ethics unites Societies. I think that division of the World along the lines of British Political Economy is too Empirical(Empiricism). Am I wrong? afterall NPOV -- JW
 * These topics should be discussed (and have been discussed) on the WikiEN mailing list, I have recently (16 April 2003) presented somewhat similar lines of thought about the internationality of (english) wikipedia. I think you should post your proposition there. -- Rotem Dan 12:24 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd be better able to agree or disagree with you if I understood what the heck you were saying, JW...


 * I also am confused by your proposal DavidCary 22:09, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

educational textbook
Why have we lost this item:


 * An educational textbook. Though Wikipedia attempts to explain many non-trivial scientific and philosophical topics, it should not be used merely as a mean of teaching the subject, this is what book references are for.

I should have moved it - sorry. To quote from my edit summary: "rm educational textbook. It's not clear to me what entries, if any, violate this rule". How would an article violate this rule? If an article happens to be a good means of teaching a subject, should we change it to be less useful?

In the case of the knowledge article, what exactly makes larry's text an "educational textbook"? Is it the use of friendly examples, such as the gas station attendent? Are we to remove friendly examples from wikipedia articles? That's only going to make them less inviting to lay readers, and accessibility is an important aim. Is it referring to the reader as "you"? Well, sure I'm happy to consider a policy on use of first and second person, but that's something for the manual of style, not here.

Sure, Wikipedia is not an educational textbook. It is also not a swimming pool. Not seeing any evidence that anyone is mistaking it for an educational textbook, I'd prefer to avoid adding unnecessary points to this page. Martin


 * Ah. ok. (I'm feeling pretty darn stupid in my swimming trunks now, I can tell you! ;-) -- Tarquin 22:52 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an almanac?
I was just reading 1999 Rugby Union World Cup, which is a list of teams, playing times, and results from the 1999 Rugby Union World Cup, and I was thinking, "This doesn't seem even remotely like an encyclopedia article to me. This seems like an almanac entry."

Is Wikipedia an almanac? Do articles that are merely lists of results and compendia of statistics belong in Wikipedia? I'm wondering. I haven't really seen anything that says otherwise, and the almanac/encyclopedia difference in dead-tree media seems mostly to be about updatability -- almanacs are updated frequently, encyclopedias are not.

Anyways, Just wondering. Not really that important, just a noodling idea.

-- ESP 21:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes - Wikipedia has a great deal of almanac-like and even gazetteer-like supporting information in it. We can do this because we are updated constantly and don't have the space concerns that the dead trees do. --mav

I'm not quite satisfied with that. We can do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we _should_ do them. If, say, word definitions and etymologies don't belong in Wikipedia, why would almanac-style lists of sports scores and weather reports belong here?

I'm not trying to be contrary; I'd just like more of an explanation.

-- ESP 21:42 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I reckon that there's a lot of fuzzy edges around Wikipedia that haven't really been hammered down. And it's probably fair to say that longstanding contributors can get away with a bit more than relative newcomers. Almanac-like info can be a useful basis for a later encyclopedia article, so even folks who have a fairly narrow vision of what Wikipedia should be in the future are happy to tolerate the current entry on the 1999 world cup on a temporary basis.


 * If you're a rugby fan, than I strongly encourage you to fix the 1999 world cup entry - or just outright replace it with brilliant prose. That makes the difference, I think. Martin


 * See also: FAQ and What Wikipedia is not. Almanac and gazetteer info is complementary to what we want to do while textbooks, mere defintions or quotes are not. Thus we have separate projects for those. --mav

OK, so, I read What is an article, and it's right there in the first paragraph: "almanac-like". Sounds good enough to me! -- ESP 02:59 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia(the encyclopedia) is not wikipedia.org (the web site) -- or is it ?
So, I'm proposing this:


 * [Wikipedia is not] a Web site. Although our encyclopedia is produced and published on http://www.wikipedia.org, it is not equivalent to that Web site. The body of text, images, and other media files that make up Wikipedia can be copied to other Wikis or Web sites, pressed onto compact discs or DVDs, installed in kiosk displays, or put to thousands of other uses.

Why? Because it clarifies what we're doing. I think there's a mistaken assumption that Wikipedia-the-free-encyclopedia is a monolithic object coterminous and identical with http://www.wikipedia.org/. I'm going to add this barring objections. -- ESP 21:32 21 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm... but currently we (IE, wikipedia) haven't pressed any CDs. And Wikipedia content has been used on other sites, but those sites aren't Wikipedia! Perhaps something for later on? Martin


 * Wikipedia is a website. If it were put on a CD or on paper it wouldn't be a wiki any more. Most likely such a project would be under a different name. --Camembert


 * Like Nupedia. --mav


 * Is Wikipedia the wiki itself, or the body of work produced by that wiki? When I get a GFDL license to Wikipedia, assumably I'm not getting a license to the domain name, the server running the system, or the Wikipedia software.


 * AFAICT, wiki is a tool, Wikipedia is the result. -- ESP 03:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

relevant topics
copied from Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Archive 2:

While you can find something about everything on Google, Wikipedia should restrict itself to those topics that are actually relevant. And if something is *not even* to be found on Google, then it *certainly* has no place on Wikipedia. Can I add my cat? Is any local town councillor relevant? The local bakery? This is making a mockery out of an encyclopaedia.


 * If it was an article on a bakery and the only content was its location and a pricelist, that would be an ad, not an article. If it was an article written by someone praising the wonderful taste of the bakery's bread, that wouldn't be a valid article on the grounds that it would be violating NPOV. If, however, that bakery had an interesting history (e.g. the oldest bakery in the state of Virginia), or was world-famous (e.g. this is Prince Charle's favorite bakery or, this bakery claims it invented the pretzel), or was a landmark of some sort, or had some unique claim to fame (e.g. a topless bakery), then an article about that bakery would be a valid addition to an encyclopedia.

See also Talk:Daniel C. Boyer re: issue of auto-biography

Itself
Suggestion: Any time a link in the Wikipedia Main space is saying something about Wikipedia as a whole, actually talking about it as a process, project, product, phenomena, organization, that is, as an EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING, link to Itself where the policies for doing so are discussed. Any time you are just mentioning it incidentally, without making a claim about it being an example of something, link to Wikipedia. That will keep these quite different uses separate, and let us easily track what claims Wikipedia makes about itself.

slang and idiom guide
(moved to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)

Primary research / original research
Item #10 on the list greatly annoys me. I have contributed material which was the product of my own research (most of the pinball article; most of the shichi narabe article; the rules to sugoroku; a proof of a special case of Fermat's Little Theorem; some info on adding machines; possibly other stuff which I've forgotten about), and I don't understand why I shouldn't. So... you're saying that I shouldn't write anything which wasn't cribbed from books, magazines, etc.? --User:Juuitchan


 * What? None of those articles that you have worked on contain original research; Pinball exists outside of your own head, and so do the other things. You did not make up a game and then try to popularize it here. That would have been a violation of the rule; what you did is not. --mav 04:12, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * That is, you shouldn't be writing about your own unpublished research. It's perfectly fine to do research for Wikipedia articles.

It's perfectly fine to do research for Wikipedia, but not original research. Wikipedians shouldn't do interviews, but rather should report on the interviews of others. Wikipedians shouldn't root through rubbish bins, but rather reporting on the privacy invasions performed by others. Or am I wrong? Martin 20:41, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what anon meant by that is that it's ok to go and find things out for Wikipedia. ie - if you want to add a date of birth to an article, you would go and look it up. You wouldn't actually interview someone to find it out, but people define research in different ways. Angela 20:55, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

''That's right. This maxim was originally invented as a way to shut people up who were writing articles about their idiosyncratic pseudo-scientific theories. But several times recently I've seen people quoting it as a reason not to include perfectly reasonable and useful content. See the confusion about pinball above for one example. As long as verifiability is maintained, it doesn't matter how contributors find out the information they include. Matthew Woodcraft''


 * Eureka!
 * We don't mean original research, we mean primary research. Right? Martin

''Probably. Do you thing primary research will be more widely understood? Matthew Woodcraft''


 * Primary research is certainly clearer than original research. If people misunderstand, we can point them to the talk page (archives). Angela 22:00, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * In any case, we should have an article on primary research or primary source... bingo! :) Martin

delete "unimportant" film/book without discussion
In the german Wikipedia a discussion is under way, because some Admins would like to delete "unimportant" film/book articles without discussion. What is the opinion of the english Wikipedia, was it discussed here already?Fantasy 10:13, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Since no-one else has answered here, I'll have a go. It isn't common practice on the English Wikipedia to delete film or book articles because their subjects are "unimportant". I'm sure that doing so without discussion would be frowned on. You don't have to follow our example, of course. Matthew Woodcraft


 * We do delete stuff that's not verifiable or which fails the google test, but only after listing it on VfD for seven days. Martin 09:23, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be deleted if it just fails the Google test if it can be verified in another way. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:07, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to get a more precise idea of what it means for a subject to perform well or poorly on the Google Test. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:49, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your Answers. It seems that it is some kind of Stub problem in the german Wikipedia. They don't like Stubs and want to delete them without discussion (you know, the Germans like everthing in order ;-) I will see how this works out. Thanks for your help, :-) Fantasy 09:49, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a suitable place for *constructing* knowledge?
Though Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopaedia, would it be appropriate for researchers in a set of overlapping fields to use it for collating fragmentary information - that is, for *constructing* knowledge rather than for *referencing* knowledge?

My example: I recently discussed setting up a collaborative Wiki for early modern historians to collate information about minor personages in Quattrocento Northern Italy. This kind of information is normally extremely fragmentary, strewn carelessly (by the winds of time) across multiple sources of varying reliability and accessibility - diaries, letters, footnotes, etc. Collaboration would help the community of early modern historians bring together these shards of knowledge into a more complete whole.

However, while this would satisfy some of Wikipedia's objectives and match its collaborative methodology, it would also implicitly contain a content mismatch (typically book references rather than URLs), while also relying on internal completeness to be useful (rather than on summaries plus links).

True, I could easily host it on one of my own (personal) mini-Wikis... but building it directly into Wikipedia would seem to be an inherently better approach. I'm really in two minds about this - what do you think?

Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 11:55, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Constructing existing knowledge, sure, Wikipedia is collaborative. Just as long as an article looks relatively presentable if someone was to come across it, it should be okay. But constructing new knowledge, probably not, you may want to check What Wikipedia is not. Thanks Dysprosia 12:00, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * My instant reaction is that you should use your personal mini-wiki to build the content, then pipe it through into Wikipedia in a controlled fashion. You could include links back to the originating mini-wiki for anyone who wanted to see the process, or contribute further. This would localise the traffic and relieve the main Wikipedia site of some pressure. YMMV. Phil 12:03, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)


 * An interesting question that lines right on the border between two of our current practices. We routinely sift through sources, often biased and/or inaccurate media sources to try to build an accurate and balanced article. In this sense we do gather primary sources together into a secondary source article. However Wikipedia is emphatically not a repositry for original research. I think the main driver for this is that many of the people who've tried to add original research have been of the crankish/crackpotty type that frequent many of the sci.* hierachy newsgroups. Your plan - to gather together very primary and fragmented sources into a coherent article is on a border line. My feeling is that other encyclopedias don't do this "close-to-the-knuckle" sourcing - they probably coallate secondary sources. However if you achieved your goals I am sure it would be very valuable addition to Wikipedia so would hope that the rules could be interpreted to accommodate you as you piece together Quattrocento Northern Italy. Interested in other opinions.... Pete 12:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If a Wikipedia article can present a primary source then that is excellent providing that primary source has been subject to academic peer review and ideally other similiar studies have been done. The issue with a primary source is whether it can be considered reliable. I'm struggling with the Dolphin brain article because it is cutting edge stuff, which has a lot of controversy around it, and the lack of reliable primary sources to fill in all the sections. Looking on the internet there does not seeem to be an article that has carefully considered the existing evidence in the way we are now trying to do. Wikipedia can provide a real service by tackling such controversial issues in a sensible non-partizan way. : ChrisG 16:40, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Walk away; WALK A-WAY! :-) Seriously, Wikipedia can't be its own authority on anything; otherwise the crackpots will take over. If you're struggling with contradictory primary sources, that's a sign that your subject is not yet ready for a WP article; wait for the book or review article to come out, and work from that. You might have to wait a while, but WP isn't going anywhere, and it isn't a science news magazine anyway. There are thousands of topics for which the research is settled, and that WP needs in order to be a good encyclopedia; by the time those are done, current controversies will likely have have been resolved by the experts. Stan 17:17, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback - I held back from adding any pages for precisely the kinds of reason given. However, does anyone know of any existing larger-scale Wikis out there which try to act as a genuinely open and collaborative forum for (what one might call) the "social construction of new knowledge"? I take Phil Boswell's point that it might be a good thing to build in a cross-reference to related Wikipedia articles... though where one should begin and the other should end might be hard to judge in practice.

I suppose what I'm talking about is a kind of "Wikipository"... any suggestions? Nick Pelling --Nickpelling 19:16, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure its a 100% fit, but http://sources.wikipedia.org/ should be a good place to start such a project. --snoyes 19:22, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Project Sourceberg, eh? I suppose what I'm describing does amount to collaboratively constructing a primary source... unfortunately, while the French/German/Nihongo versions are all running OK, the English appears to be crashing ATM (perhaps because of a recent server move?) I'll keep trying though... thanks! --Nickpelling 23:12, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This query could be summarized to the FAQ page -- Tarquin 13:22, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the other sites mentioned on Don't_include_copies_of_primary_sources would be more appropriate.

Expand or remove
Can the following points be expanded or removed from the page :
 * 3. Lists of such definitions -- the point only explains why such lists are allowed and not why such lists are NOT allowed.
 * 12. Mere collections of external links -- only says within brackets why external links are allowed
 * 13. Mere collections of internal links -- same as above
 * 4. A usage guide -- almost same as above, the point is not explanatory, rather the exception is.
 * 11. List repository -- same as above

This page can be reformatted to separate out what is allowed in Wikipedia and what is not. I feel the bracket-ization is confusing things. Jay 17:49, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks The Cunctator for standardizing on the brackets ! Jay 21:42, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Are interviews research?
Primary sources aren't allowed. If a Wikipedian does an interview for another purpose, then could that particular Wikipedian use the interview's info in an article on a relevant topic? -- user:zanimum
 * The discussion above seems to indicate no, but I'm not sure. If I knew Snoop Dogg I wouldn't hesitate to ask him questions to fill in the article as needed or clear up ambiguities, and the same if I had previously interviewed him for another reason.  I think the distinction should be what kind of information is a result.  If a thousand websites give varying dates for Snoop Dogg's birth, for example, asking him to clarify would be appropriate, but trying to extensively interview him to create a new/better/correcter interpretation of early 90s West Coast hip hop would not be. Tuf-Kat 21:07, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

What is a "list" in wikipedia?
I have been told that the article "list of words in English which are nouns when accented on first syllable and verbs when accented on second syllable", or something like that, is not a list, or anyway not the kind of list to which item#11 here applies (wikipedia is not a list repository, not a repository of list of items vaguely related). So I don't understand what item#11 means; what kinds of lists does it apply to? Kyk 22:05, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * There are over 14000 Google hits on the phrase "list of" in Wikipedia so I'm not convinced #11 is really true. Angela.


 * The only thing I can come up with that it applies to is lists of quotes. We do have a List of people by name, so clearly #11 is not being followed.  Maybe it should be rephrased... Anthony DiPierro 00:25, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Primary Research wrt User created images

 * Wikipedia articles are not...
 * 10. Primary research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals.

How does this relate to images created by a user for an article, particularly artistic impressions of extinct animals with very little extant data (eg. talk:Paranthropus) or modem folk tale animals (eg. talk:Yeti)? - UtherSRG 19:46, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bust size, height, and weight
(from the village pump)

After coming across Kasia Smutniak, I wondered, "is bust size encyclopedic?" That led me to further questiosn like whether or not weight, height, or eye color of model's should be included in wikipedia articles. Anyone have any feelings about this? Sennheiser! 15:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say they're not appropriate. Besides how would we verify such claims :) Dori | Talk 16:26, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * The same way we verify people's dates of birth or anything else - if it says it in two places on the internet then assume it's right unless someone contradicts you. Onebyone 16:36, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I can only think of one article where the bust size would be encyclopedic, and that'd be Lollo Ferrari, as the only thing she got famous was that she had her breasts enlarged sooo much. But apparently noone considered her worth an article yet. andy 16:38, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say someone's measurements are only relevant when that's what has made them famous, like andy said, though I can think of more than one situation where it might be relevant. Perhaps Twiggy, Kate Moss, Barbie if she were real.  Height might be a useful stat for certain basketball players.  But standard actress articles?  No.  moink 22:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I thimk the sizes are relevant for mpdels as they are their professional characteristics. It is, for instance, interesting to compare different models' sizes, especially during decades, as "the model sizes" are changing.


 * The details of appearance are relevant for anyone who works using her/his appearance, including actors.


 * Height or weight may play an important role in a person's life, see for instance Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec. Or, if there are descriptions by contemporaries of the appearance of some Byzantian emperor, wouldn't you cite them?


 * And besides, I think that Wikipedia should not be afraid to include whatever facts if they are thought to be true by the contributors. If there is any doubt, just indicate the source. If the article becomes too long, you may create separate articles. Andres 06:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, in fields where appearance is significant. If it can be discovered, that's probably beause it matters for that individual or their career, so if we find it, I think we should not hesitate to include it. It seems most unlikely that Margaret Thatcher ever advertised her measurements in that way. Jolene Blalock, one the other hand, was selected for Star Trek with her physical appearance is a primary selection factor. Jamesday 08:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)